Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing could be omitted?
Why would you care more about the time it takes to compile the kernel, than the time it takes for executing it?
I am also interested in the evolution of compilation time frames.
Benchmarks are all about performance of a running kernel,
This is generally reasonable.
nobody compares benchmarks of the time it takes to compile it.
I guess that the situation can be occasionally different there.
Sure, we like to make the compile times quicker
Good to know …
(heck, I wrote "make localmodconfig" for just that purpose),
Thanks.
but we never favor compiler time over execution time.
I imagine that the speed expectations could be adjusted during software development, couldn't they?
In fact, if we can improve the execution performance by sacrificing compile time, we are happy to do that.
I guess that you would like to consider some constraints there.
In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be, and the kernel build will break otherwise.
- Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
No.
Will any other contributors take another look?
- How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
It works just fine as is.
I hope that further software improvements can be achieved also for this use case.
Errors that can be detected at build time are 100 times better than detecting them at execution time.
I agree to such a general view.
Will an other (or no) error message be more appropriate?
Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html